Search (25 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=3918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=5441,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Over the past few years there has been a significant amount of work in the area of cataloging internet resources, primarily using new metadata standards like the Dublin Core, but there has been little work on applying new data description formats like SGML and XML to traditional cataloging practices. What little work has been done in the area of using SGML and XML for traditional bibliographic description has primarily been based on the concept of converting MARC tagging into XML tagging. I suggest that, rather than attempting to convert existing MARC tagging into a new syntax based on SGML or XML, a more fruitful possibility is to return to the cataloging standards and describe their inherent structure, learning from how MARC has been used successfully in modern OPAC while attempting to avoid MARC's rigid field-based restrictions.

0.0020501618 = product of:
  0.006150485 = sum of:
    0.006150485 = product of:
      0.01230097 = sum of:
        0.01230097 = weight(_text_:of in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01230097 = score(doc=3781,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

XML, the Extensible Markup Language is a syntax for tagging, or marking-up, textual information. It is a standard, established by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) that many use when sharing or working with structured information. XML isn't used by itself, but as a tool to create other data-specific markup languages. One benefit to using XML is that it enables these languages to distinguish the content that is being marked up from its presentation, allowing for greater flexibility and data reuse. The library community has embraced XML and uses it as the foundation for many of their own data-specific markup languages. Perhaps the greatest strength of XML is that it is very easy to start working with and yet, in conjunction with many other XML-related standards and technologies, can also be used to develop complex applications.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0019529418 = product of:
  0.005858825 = sum of:
    0.005858825 = product of:
      0.01171765 = sum of:
        0.01171765 = weight(_text_:of in 3847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01171765 = score(doc=3847,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 3847, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3847)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This entry describes notions and methods for analyzing and modeling documents in an organizational context. A model for the analysis process is provided and methods for data gathering, modeling, and user needs analysis described. The methods have been originally developed and tested during document standardization activities carried out in the Finnish Parliament and ministries. Later the methods have been adopted and adapted in other Finnish organizations in their document management development projects. The methods are intended especially for cases where the goal is to develop an Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based solution for document management. This entry emphasizes the importance of analyzing and describing documents in their organizational context.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0016739499 = product of:
  0.0050218496 = sum of:
    0.0050218496 = product of:
      0.010043699 = sum of:
        0.010043699 = weight(_text_:of in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010043699 = score(doc=1622,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 1622, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Thesauri are used to provide controlled vocabularies for resource classification. Their use can greatly assist document discovery because thesauri man date a consistent shared terminology for describing documents. A particular thesauras classifies documents according to an information community's needs. As a result, there are many different thesaural schemas. This has led to a proliferation of schema-specific thesaural systems. In our research, we exploit schematic regularities to design a generic thesaural ontology and specfiy it as a markup language. The language provides a common representational framework in which to encode the idiosyncrasies of specific thesauri. This approach has several advantages: it offers consistent syntax and semantics in which to express thesauri; it allows general purpose thesaural applications to leverage many thesauri; and it supports a single thesaural user interface by which information communities can consistently organise, score and retrieve electronic documents.